DOCSLIB.ORG

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 HC 2469 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 5A of the Prison Act 1952. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 9 July 2019. HC 2469 © Crown Copyright 2019 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at: www.gov.uk/official-documents and www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at: [email protected] ISBN 978-1-5286-1459-7 CCS0619502094 07/19 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum. Printed in the UK by CDS on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. CONTENTS Who we are and what we do 4 1 Introduction By the Chief Inspector of Prisons 6 2 The year in brief 16 3 Men in prison 20 Prisons have become less safe for some 22 Poor living conditions for many prisoners 27 Too much time in cell, too little activity outside 33 Progress on rehabilitation and release planning but problems 39 remain 4 Women in prison 46 5 Children in custody 52 6 Immigration detention 62 7 Police custody 68 8 Court custody 76 9 The Inspectorate in 2018–19 80 10 Appendices 86 1 Inspection reports published 2018–19 87 2 Healthy prison and establishment assessments 2018–19 89 3 Recommendations accepted in 2018–19 91 4 Recommendations achieved in 2018–19 94 5 Prisoner survey responses (adult men): diversity analysis 97 6 Prisoner survey responses: men and women 116 WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE DO Our purpose Services (HMICFRS), Care Quality Commission To ensure independent inspection of places of (CQC), HM Inspectorate of Probation and the General detention, report on conditions and treatment, and Pharmaceutical Council, appropriate to the type and promote positive outcomes for those detained and the location of the establishment. public. OPCAT and the National Preventive Mechanism All inspections carried out by HM Inspectorate of Our values Prisons (HMI Prisons) contribute to the UK’s response ¡ Independence, impartiality and integrity are the to its international obligations under the Optional foundations of our work. Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture and ¡ The experience of the detainee is at the heart of our other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or inspections. Punishment (OPCAT). OPCAT requires that all places ¡ Respect for human rights underpins our of detention are visited regularly by independent expectations. bodies – known as the National Preventive Mechanism ¡ We embrace diversity and are committed to (NPM) – which monitor the treatment of and pursuing equality of outcomes for all. conditions for detainees. HMI Prisons is one of several ¡ We believe in the capacity of both individuals and bodies making up the NPM in the UK and houses the organisations to change and improve, and that we NPM Secretariat, which coordinates the NPM’s joint have a part to play in initiating and encouraging activities. change. Our approach Our remit HMI Prisons’ inspections are carried out against Our remit is primarily set out in section 5A of the published inspection criteria known as Expectations. Prison Act 1952. We inspect: The Inspectorate sets its own inspection criteria ¡ adult men’s and women’s prisons in England and to ensure transparency and independence. The Wales starting point of all inspections is the outcome for ¡ young offender institutions (YOIs) in England and detainees. The Inspectorate’s Expectations are based Wales on and referenced against international human rights ¡ secure training centres (STCs) in England standards, with the aim of promoting treatment and conditions in detention which at least meet recognised ¡ all forms of immigration detention throughout the 1 UK and overseas escorts international human rights standards. ¡ police custody in England and Wales Expectations for inspections of adult male and ¡ court custody in England and Wales female prisons and YOIs are based on four tests of a ¡ Border Force custody in England and Scotland healthy establishment: ¡ military detention facilities throughout the UK, by ¡ Safety – prisoners, particularly the most vulnerable, invitation are held safely. ¡ prisons in Northern Ireland, by invitation ¡ Respect – prisoners are treated with respect for ¡ prisons and other custodial institutions in other their human dignity. jurisdictions with links to the UK, by invitation. ¡ Purposeful activity – prisoners are able, and expected, to engage in activity that is likely to Most inspections take place in partnership with benefit them. other inspectorates, including Ofsted, Estyn, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue 1 All the Inspectorate’s Expectations are available at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/our-expectations 4 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales ¡ Rehabilitation and release planning (Resettlement Inspectors use five key sources of evidence in making in women’s prisons) – prisoners are supported to their assessments: maintain and develop relationships with their family ¡ observation and friends. Prisoners are helped to reduce their ¡ prisoner/detainee surveys likelihood of reoffending and their risk of harm is ¡ discussions with prisoners/detainees managed effectively. Prisoners are prepared for ¡ discussions with staff and relevant third parties their release into the community. ¡ documentation. The tests for immigration detention facilities are similar, HMI Prisons operates an almost entirely unannounced but also take into account the specific circumstances inspection programme (other than in exceptional applying to detainees and the fact that they have not circumstances), with all inspections following up been charged with a criminal offence or detained recommendations from the previous inspection. through normal judicial processes. In other inspection There is a minimum frequency for inspection of all sectors the principles underpinning the healthy types of establishments, with the timing of inspections establishment concept are applied, but the specific deliberately unpredictable. Such an approach is based focus varies depending on the sector. These are on, and responsive to, considered intelligence and described in more detail in the relevant sections of the proactive risk assessment. report. Prisons are inspected at least once every five years, Each expectation describes the standards of treatment although we expect to inspect most every two to and conditions an establishment is expected to three years. Some high-risk establishments may be achieve. These are underpinned by a series of inspected more frequently, including those holding ‘indicators’ which describe evidence that may show children, which are currently inspected annually. the expectation being met. The list of indicators is not exhaustive and does not exclude other ways of Every immigration removal centre (IRC) receives a full achieving the expectation. unannounced inspection at least once every four years, or every two years if it holds children. Non-residential The inspection team assesses the establishment’s short-term holding facilities (STHFs) are inspected performance against the healthy establishment tests at least once every six years. Residential STHFs are using the following judgements: inspected at least once every four years. Within this Numeric Definition framework, all immigration inspections are scheduled on a risk-assessed basis. 4 Outcomes for prisoners are good. There is no evidence that outcomes for detainees are being We inspect each police force’s custody suites at least adversely affected in any significant areas. once every six years, or more often if concerns have 3 Outcomes for prisoners are reasonably good. been raised during a previous inspection or by other There is evidence of adverse outcomes for detainees in intelligence. Court custody facilities are inspected at only a small number of areas. For the majority there are no significant concerns. least once every six years, and Border Force custody facilities are inspected at least once every two years. 2 Outcomes for prisoners are not sufficiently good. There is evidence that outcomes for detainees are being In addition to inspections of individual establishments, adversely affected in many areas or particularly in those we produce thematic reports on cross-cutting issues, areas of greatest importance to the well-being of detainees. Problems/concerns, if left unattended, are likely to become singly or with other inspectorates as part of the areas of serious concern. Criminal Justice Joint Inspection process. We also use our inspection findings to make observations and 1 Outcomes for prisoners are poor. There is evidence that the outcomes for detainees are recommendations relating to proposed legislative and seriously affected by current practice. There is a failure to policy changes. ensure even adequate treatment of and/or conditions for detainees. Immediate remedial action is required. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 5 1 Introduction by the Chief Inspector of Prisons 6 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION ONE Introduction The recent history of many prisons in is much that is firmly within the control of England and Wales has been deeply those whose responsibility it is to lead and troubling. We saw once more in manage these complex establishments. It is 2018–19 – the fourth year on which I as clear as day, and I see it for myself week have reported – that far too many of in, week out as I join our inspection teams our jails have been plagued by drugs, across England and Wales, that the variations violence, appalling living conditions in performance of apparently comparable and a lack of access to meaningful jails is directly influenced by the quality of rehabilitative activity.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Prison Education in England and Wales. (2Nd Revised Edition)
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 388 842 CE 070 238 AUTHOR Ripley, Paul TITLE Prison Education in England and Wales. (2nd Revised Edition). Mendip Papers MP 022. INSTITUTION Staff Coll., Bristol (England). PUB DATE 93 NOTE 30p. AVAILABLE FROMStaff College, Coombe Lodge, Blagdon, Bristol BS18 6RG, England, United Kingdom (2.50 British pounds). PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070) EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Adult Basic Education; *Correctional Education; *Correctional Institutions; Correctional Rehabilitation; Criminals; *Educational History; Foreign Countries; Postsecondary Education; Prisoners; Prison Libraries; Rehabilitation Programs; Secondary Education; Vocational Rehabilitation IDENTIFIERS *England; *Wales ABSTRACT In response to prison disturbances in England and Wales in the late 1980s, the education program for prisoners was improved and more prisoners were given access to educational services. Although education is a relatively new phenomenon in the English and Welsh penal system, by the 20th century, education had become an integral part of prison life. It served partly as a control mechanism and partly for more altruistic needs. Until 1993 the management and delivery of education and training in prisons was carried out by local education authority staff. Since that time, the education responsibility has been contracted out to organizations such as the Staff College, other universities, and private training organizations. Various policy implications were resolved in order to allow these organizations to provide prison education. Today, prison education programs are probably the most comprehensive of any found in the country. They may range from literacy education to postgraduate study, with students ranging in age from 15 to over 65. The curriculum focuses on social and life skills.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning Committee
    Council Offices, Almada Street Hamilton, ML3 0AA Dear Councillor Planning Committee The Members listed below are requested to attend a meeting of the above Committee to be held as follows:- Date: Tuesday, 29 January 2019 Time: 10:00 Venue: Committee Room 1, Council Offices, Almada Street, Hamilton, ML3 0AA The business to be considered at the meeting is listed overleaf. Members are reminded to bring their fully charged tablets to the meeting Yours sincerely Lindsay Freeland Chief Executive Members Alistair Fulton (Chair), Isobel Dorman (Depute Chair), John Ross (ex officio), Alex Allison, John Bradley, Walter Brogan, Archie Buchanan, Jackie Burns, Stephanie Callaghan, Margaret Cowie, Maureen Devlin, Mary Donnelly, Fiona Dryburgh, Mark Horsham, Ann Le Blond, Martin Lennon, Richard Lockhart, Kenny McCreary, Richard Nelson, Carol Nugent, Graham Scott, David Shearer, Collette Stevenson, Bert Thomson, Jim Wardhaugh, Sheena Wardhaugh Substitutes John Anderson, Janine Calikes, Gerry Convery, Margaret Cooper, Peter Craig, Allan Falconer, Lynsey Hamilton, Catherine McClymont, Colin McGavigan, Mark McGeever, Lynne Nailon, Jared Wark, Josh Wilson 1 BUSINESS 1 Declaration of Interests 2 Minutes of Previous Meeting 5 - 12 Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 4 December 2018 submitted for approval as a correct record. (Copy attached) Item(s) for Decision 3 Application P/18/0479 for a Residential Development of 70 Houses, 13 - 30 Including Access Road, Open Space, Landscaping and Engineering Works (Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions Application for the Discharge of Condition 1 of Planning Consent in Principle EK/15/0078) at Land to North of Eaglesham Road, Jackton, East Kilbride Report dated 17 January 2019 by the Executive Director (Community and Enterprise Resources).
    [Show full text]
  • Campsfield to Close! "I Can Also Confirm That I Intend to Close Campsfield House
    May 2002 Campsfield Monitor Newsletter of the Contents Campaign to Campsfield to Close 1 Close Campsfield Protest Works! 2 The Campsfield: News & Updates 4 Bail for Immigration Detainees 5 Asylum & Immigration: the big picture 5 Summary of BWB’s Response to the white paper 6 Barbed Wire Britain 7 Campsfield The New Jargon: Accommodation & Removals Centres 8 Swamped! 8 Bicester’s Accommodation Centre 9 May Yarl’s Wood Cover Up? 10 Open Borders - review 11 2002 Terrorism Law & Refugees 11 Monitor Campaign Info & Contacts 12 www.closeCampsfield.org.uk Campsfield to Close! "I can also confirm that I intend to close Campsfield House. This outdated centre is no longer appropriate in the 21st century. These places will be transferred to the new high- standard removal centres." David Blunkett, Home Secretary, speech to the House of Commons 7th Feb 2002 The unexpected announcement came It certainly looks like that, so the amidst the Home Secretary's speech decision is useful for future unveiling the new white paper on campaigning against detention!" Asylum and Immigration. The The Campaign also pointed out that Campaign, now in its ninth year, of new, bigger detention centres are course welcomed the news to the being opened and more innocent extent the closure will mean one refugees and other migrants are being fewer detention centre and "Oxford's detained (Yarl's Wood: 900, Shame" (Oxford Mail) will be no more. Harmondsworth 550, Dover 400). The However, in the context of Blunkett's new generation of mega detention speech advocating increased centres, Yarl's Wood (which prior to detention capacity, it was clear from the recent fire was Europe's biggest) the out set that this did not represent and Harmondsworth may have bigger a softening of the government's gyms but they are still prisons, with policy of detaining asylum seekers.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on an Unannounced Inspection of Dungavel House Immigration Removal Centre by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons 2-5, 9-11, 16
    Report on an unannounced inspection of Dungavel House Immigration Removal Centre by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons 2–5, 9–11, 16–19 July 2018 This inspection was carried out with assistance from colleagues at Health Improvement Scotland and in partnership with the following body: Crown copyright 2018 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at the address below or: [email protected] This publication is available for download at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/ Printed and published by: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons 3rd floor 10 South Colonnade Canary Wharf London E14 4PU England 2 Dungavel House Immigration Removal Centre Contents Contents Introduction 5 Fact page 7 About this inspection and report 9 Summary 13 Section 1. Safety 21 Section 2. Respect 31 Section 3. Activities 43 Section 4. Preparation for removal and release 47 Section 5. Summary of recommendations and good practice 51 Section 6. Appendices 57 Appendix I: Inspection team 57 Appendix II: Progress on recommendations from the last report 59 Appendix
    [Show full text]
  • United Kingdom Immigration Detention Profile October 2016
    United Kingdom Immigration Detention Profile October 2016 • Introduction • Laws, Policies, Practices • Detention Infrastructure INTRODUCTION The United Kingdom has one of the largest immigration detention systems in Europe, confining up to 4,000 people—including children—in detention every day under Immigration Act powers.1 As of October 2016, the country’s immigration detention estate included nine “immigration removal centres” (IRCs) and a small number of residential immigration detention holding facilities.2 In addition, several hundred people are kept in prisons under Immigration Act powers awaiting deportation after having finished their criminal sentences.3 According to Home Office statistics, during the year ending in March 2016, 32,163 persons entered immigration detention, of whom 32,610 left detention and 2,925 remained in detention (these numbers do not include the 363 people held in the prison system under Immigration Act powers).4 There has been a marked increase in detention 1 The GDP would like to acknowledge the helpful comments it received from several external reviewers of early drafts of this profile. 2 In mid-2016, the government announced that it intended to close one of the nine IRCs (Dungavel) as well as the “pre-departure” family facility at Cedars. 3 For an overview of the UK detention estate, see Mary Bosworth, “Border Criminologies: Assessing the Changing Architecture of Crime and Punishment,” Global Detention Project Working Paper, February 2016, http://www.globaldetentionproject.org/publications/border-criminologies-assessing-changing- architecture-crime-and-punishment. 4 The Home Office explains on its detention statistics page that the figures “relate to the number of people entering, leaving or in detention, solely under Immigration Act powers, at immigration removal centres (IRCs), short-term holding facilities (STHFs) and pre-departure accommodation (PDA).” See Home Office, National Statistics – Detention, updated 3 March 2016, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-january-to-march-2016/detention.
    [Show full text]
  • 14/01778/F Campsfield House: Immigration Removal Centre
    Campsfield House: Immigration 14/01778/F Removal Centre, Langford Lane, Kidlington Ward: Kidlington North District Councillor: Cllr Rose Cllr Williamson Case Officer: Paul Ihringer Recommendation: Approval Applicant: The Home Office and Ministry of Justice Application Description: Expansion of existing immigration removal centre to provide additional detainee accommodation, ancillary detainee and staff facilities, car parking, landscaping and internal fencing Committee Referral: Major and Departure from Policy Committee Date: 19th February 2015 1. Site Description and Proposed Development 1.1 Campsfield House is an Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) located on Kidlington’s northern boundary and just to the south of London Oxford Airport. It has functioned as such since 1993 having formerly been used as a youth detention centre. It has been operated by a private sector company, Mitie, since 2011 on behalf of the Home Office (HO) - the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) own the facility. 1.2 The site is accessed via a service road off Langford Lane. The service road is shared with South Central Ambulance Service which runs a resource centre and a HM Prison Service facility (Control and Restraint) which largely screen the IRC from Langford Lane. Another former access to the site is via Evenlode Crescent, a road parallel and to the west of the other access. Evenlode Crescent serves twenty-two residential properties, mainly semi-detached and most of which formerly housed workers at the youth detention centre. These properties are now in private ownership. The Crescent also serves the Cygnet Nursery. 1.3 The application site is located just inside the Oxford Green Belt. This is at odds with most of the rest of Kidlington which, although encircled by it, was excluded when the boundary lines of the Oxford Green Belt were ratified in the mid 1970s.
    [Show full text]
  • May 2013 IMMIGRATION DETENTION and the RULE of LAW
    May 2013 IMMIGRATION DETENTION AND THE RULE OF LAW NATIONAL REPORT: UNITED KINGDOM Alexis Cooke Contents List of Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................... 4 Immigration Detention Statistics ....................................................................................................... 6 The number of people in detention:.............................................................................................. 6 The type of people in detention: ................................................................................................... 6 The average duration of detention: ............................................................................................... 8 The average daily cost of detention per person: ............................................................................ 9 Arbitrariness ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Reasons for Detention .................................................................................................................... 10 Legislation ................................................................................................................................... 10 UKBA policy................................................................................................................................. 11 Commentary ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Matter of Routine: the Use of Immigration Detention in the UK
    ADVANCE COPY ADVANCE A MATTER OF ROUTINE The use of immigration detention in the UK Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 7 million people who campaign for a world where human rights are enjoyed by all. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards. We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our membership and public donations. Contents Executive summary 1 Introduction 4 Chapter 1: From reluctance to routine 9 Chapter 2: The consequences of routine detention 20 Chapter 3: Putting people in detention 28 Chapter 4: Keeping people in detention 35 Conclusion and recommendations 43 Appendix:: The process of detention and release 46 Glossary of terms 48 A matter of routine: the use of immigration detention in the UK Published by Amnesty International United Kingdom Section December 2017 www.amnesty.org.uk/detention EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A matter of routine: the use of immigration detention in the UK In the 12 months from June 2016 to June 2017, the UK put 27,819 people into immigration detention. Few of them would have had any idea when they would leave: there is no statutory time limit on detention. For most, detention ultimately lasts up to a few weeks, but some are held for many months and some for years. Most detainees are ultimately released back into the community. In 2015, a joint inquiry by two All Party Parliamentary Groups (APPG on Refugees and APPG on Migration) found that ‘the UK detains too many people, for too long a time, and that in far too many cases people are detained completely unnecessarily’.
    [Show full text]
  • The Campsfield Monitor
    November 2003 www.closeCampsfield.org.uk The Campsfield Monitor Newsletter of the Campaign to Close Campsfield BLUNKETT'S SPECTACULAR U-TURN Campsfield set to expand! The next ten years? It was carried by 28 votes to 8 with 10 abstentions. Labour Councillors led by Liz Brighouse opposed the motion When the Home Secretary, David or abstained, councillor Chris Robbins Blunkett, made his of Kidlington being the only one of announcement on 7th February their number to speak in favour. As 2002, that Campsfield would well as being wrong, their stance close by 2004 because it was contradicts the policy of the 4 out of "outdated" and "inappropriate 6 constituency Labour Parties in for the 21st century" it was Oxfordshire which have affiliated to greeted by supporters of the the Campaign to Close Campsfield Campaign to Close Campsfield and consistently argued against with joy but also a dose of detention. The councillors' action is scepticism - a scepticism now being taken up in the Labour Party. shown to be spot on. Rooftop protest at start of mass hunger Just two months later, in April last strike at Campsfield. March 1994. What now? year, it was announced that the After ten years of campaigning, the closure would be delayed because of Local reaction of shock and dismay Close Campsfield Campaign has no the dearth of detention places created was reflected by the resolution to the choice but to carry on. Campsfield by the fire at Yarl's Wood. But Yarl's County Council by Liberal Democrat may not be a household name but it is Wood reopened in September of this councillor Janet Godden, that: "This a surprisingly well known one.
    [Show full text]
  • Zaweel, Asylum Seeker
    Durham E-Theses Rethinking Resistance: Creativity and potentiality within the UK asylum system HUGHES, SARAH,MARGARET How to cite: HUGHES, SARAH,MARGARET (2018) Rethinking Resistance: Creativity and potentiality within the UK asylum system , Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/12686/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 Rethinking Resistance: Creativity and potentiality within the UK asylum system Sarah M. Hughes Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Geography, Durham University 2017 Abstract This thesis explores the ways in which creativity can produce modes of resistance within the UK asylum system. It argues for a rethinking of resistance across three dimensions: non-linear temporalities; incoherent subjectivities, and lively materialities. The thesis proposes that a focus on creativity allows for a critical engagement with ambiguous moments, materials and subjects that contain the immanent potential to disrupt both the practices and premise of the UK asylum system; to imagine, and thus to open up the possibility, that things can become otherwise.
    [Show full text]
  • Independent Monitoring Board Annual Report for Dungavel House Immigration Removal Centre
    Dungavel House Immigration Removal Centre Strathaven, South Lanarkshire. ML10 6RF Tel: 01698 395000 Fax: 01698 395074 Independent Monitoring Board ANNUAL REPORT 2011 CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. Executive Summary 3. Location and Background 4. Accommodation and Hygiene (Rules 15 and 16) 5. Clothing and Food (Rules 12, 13 and 14) 6. Regime (Rules 17,18 and 19) 7. Religion and Religious Affairs (Rules 20‐25) 8. Communications (Rules 26‐32) 9. Health Care (Rules 33‐37) 10. Requests and Complaints (Rule 38) 11. Safety and Security (Rules 39‐43) 12. Independent Monitoring Board (Part V1, DC Rules) 13. Comments and Recommendations 14. Formal Confirmation 1. Introduction The Annual Report is furnished to the Minister for Immigration by The Independent Monitoring Board of Dungavel House Immigration removal centre in accordance with Rule 64(1) of the Detention Centre Rules 2001, and relates to the state of the Centre and its administration including suggestions and recommendation which members consider appropriate. It covers the period from 01 January 2011 – 31 December 2011. Diagrams and statistics are not included, in the view that they are best supplied by UKBA, should that be necessary. The report is, however, submitted in good faith and without prejudice as the findings of Independent Monitors visiting the Centre on a daily basis, in a voluntary capacity. 2. Executive Summary 1. The most noteworthy matter of interest occurring during the year was the change of appointed contractor on 24 September, when GEO Group UK Ltd, took over the operation and administration of the Centre from G4S Security services, for a contract period of 5 years.
    [Show full text]
  • 21 Years of Resistance to Immigration Detention at Campsfield
    26.03.94 Demonstrators climb fence, reach roof 21 years of resistance and stay for 12 hours. Ali Tamarat, former to immigration detainee and hunger striker, speaks at demonstration and on TV. Two days later he is detention at Campsfield re-detained. 24.05.94 Detainee seen being deported 25.11.93 First immigration detainees brought handcuffed and mouth taped up. Already ill from Harmondsworth detention centre. 12 before her transfer, the doctor at Holloway demonstrators meet minibuses at Campsfield prison refused her and she had to be taken to main gates and demand freedom for detainees. Whittington hospital. 25.05.94 Detainees extract promise from Almost at once there were protests by those Immigration Service staff in Campsfield that there would be no more unannounced held inside Campsfield, and for 21 years there have been individual and collective deportations. protests by detainees including signed 4.06.94 600 people demonstrate outside statements to the authorities, and mass Campsfield; human rights camp set up. hunger strikes. 5.06.94 Mass revolt in Campsfield by detainees Monthly demonstrations (last Saturday at following deportation of Ali Tamarat without noon) and monthly public meetings in warning. 11 detainees escape. Many protest on Oxford’s Town Hall (first Tuesday, 7.30pm) rooftop. Riot police are sent in. 22 detainees moved to prison after protest. At least five now both number over 250. detainees injured 9.07.94 Camp for human rights evicted from 16,17.12.93 Town centre demo; Public meeting outside main gates of Campsfield (erected against Campsfield in Oxford Town Hall.
    [Show full text]